Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 630 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of Refund of IGST - rejection on the ground that the supplier of service and the recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with Explanation 1 in section 8 of IGST Act - non-application of mind while passing impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has been passed without application of mind and in disregard of the provisions of law. The relevant circular was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner. But respondent no.1 completely ignored the same and proceeded to pass the order mechanically.
Although, it is mentioned that the petitioner is an intermediary but there is no ground whatsoever for holding the said view. The terms of the Agreement are unambiguous. The petitioner has provided services on principal-to-principal basis. The services provided by the petitioner are on its own count and not facilitated by provision of services from any third-party services provider - the petitioner is a registered EOU for the services as exported by it.
The respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund along with interest - petition allowed.